The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-11-03
THE ANARCHISTS MUST HANG

THE ANARCHISTS MUST HANG
DECISION BY THE SUPREME coURa
| DENYING THE WRIT OF ERROR.
| Tao Court Helds that the Jury Law or nIie.
| nois IL Constitutional, and that the Csart
| has No Jurisdiction on Other Quesaasre,
| as these Questions were Neither Raises
| in Nor Decided by the state Csurt-
The Reception OF the News by the Cea.
demued Men--statc or Feeling In Chioage.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2.-The decision Of the
United States Supreme Court upon the pet3-
| ton for q writ OF error In the case OF the Chi
caRo Anarchists was announced this afternoon
by Chief Justice Waite in long and carefully
prepared opinion, which occupied thirty-fivs
minutes in the reading. The following 10 the
text OF the opinion:
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
When, as In this case. application Is made to
MS on the suggestion OF one OF our number to
whom similar application had been previous
ly addressed for the allowance OF q writ 81
error to the highest court OF q State. under
section TOO Of the Revised Statutes, 1t is our
| duty to ascertain not only whether any Quoe.
ton removable here was made and decided In
the proper court below. but whether 1t is Of q
character to Justify us in bringing tho juda-
| ment here for determination.
In our opinion the writ ought not to be
allowed by tho Court II 1t appears from the
face Of the record that the decision OF the Fed.
eral question. which is complained OF. was 60
plainly right as not to require argument, and
especially II 1t Is In accordance with our own
well-considered judgments in similar cases.
| That is in effect what was done in Twitchell
| agt. the Commonwealth, Wall, 323, when the
writ was refused because the questions pro-
sented by the record were mo longer subjects
Of discussion" although II they had been In
the opinion OF the Court open" 1t would
have been allowed. When under section
Of our rule motion to affirm Is
united with motion to dismiss for want
OF jurisdiction. the practice has been
to grant the motion to affirm when the Ques-
ton on which our jurisdiction depends was 80
manifestly decided right that the case ought
not to be held for further argument ARROW
smith agt. Harmoning. 11s United States, 1914,
1876: Church age Kelley, 121 United States, 282l
Tho propriety Of adopting similar rule upon
motions in open court for the allowance Of Q
writ is apparent, for certainly We would not be
| justified as court In sending out writ to
bring up for review judgment Of the highest
court Of q State. when 1t is apparent on the
face Of the record that 1t would be our duty to
| grant motion to affirm as soon as 1t was
made in proper form.
|
Of argument in support OF the application, and
| while counsel have not deemed 1t their duty to
| 20 fully into the merits OF tho questions in
| volved. they have shown us distinctly what the
! decisions were OF which they complain and
how the questions arose. In this way We are
able to determine. as a court in session, whether
the errors alleged are such as to justify US in
bringing the case here for review. We proceed,
then. to consider what the questions are in
which, II 1t exists at all, our jurisdiction de.
| Ponds.
The particular provisions Of the Constitution
of the United States on which counsel rely are
found in articles w., ". W.. and XIV. OF the
| amendments, as follows:
Article ~ Tho tight Of the people 70 Be secure n their
sG as *sssa
sspfasa Of ns css.y Or properly Without due pro
ss :slss In all er,nln. prosecutions N: accused
s%$: s.3s :Sss s;s:
xsass sssasa Sa III. :a. MAX. or .nsore.
;ns
Of life liberty or property without
That the first ten articles Of amendment
were not intended to limit tho powers Of the
so The
tury ago. and that decision has been steadily
|
81 asa rs': as ,1s s
S%,'s e.
q ss,sss fs' S1i.S s:Ss: 81 S;SI;
:ssnE u u j. sls %; F:.s:es st f.~asd e. 9is.
"a 3s;s;sS e.. stE Si;.
that sheuSh erenay me st ten Smsna
ments were adopted as limitations on Fed:
eIal power yet in 50 far a. they secure and and
rights OF the man-they make them privileges
and immunities Of the man as q citizen OF the
a State State under under the Fosrteenth Xmendment. In
other words. while the ten smendmments az
not snS S sGs s as
far as they declare or recognize the rights OF
Bs a ss ss.es are md As sss
amendment as to such rights limits State power
as the ten amendments had limited Federal
e q the Fesr.esnth I%end%snt which dsssEss
that no State shall depriye any person Of life,
law" Implies that every person charged With
crime in . State shall be, entitled to trial By
ana sh Tine not be ass
strued by the Court deprived ths rs etitloners q
was Compelled to- give evidence against him.
self before considering whether the Constitq-
Is claimed. It is proper to inquire whether the
Federal questions relied on In fact arise on the
One statute TO which objection is made was
approved March -. 1874, and has been In force
since July l. OF that year. The complaint 10
and in accordance with the requirements.
compelled the petitioners against their will 10
partial. and thus deprived them OF one OF the
| fundamental rights which they had as cti.
| zens OF the United States under the national
| Constitution. and II the sentence Of the court
is carried into execution they Will be deprived
In Hopt agt Utah t120 U. g.. 439l 1t was de-
cided by this court that when "a challenge by
bias actual or implied. is disuowed, and the
| Juror is thereupon peremptorily challenged by
| the defendant and excused. and an impartial
no injury is done TO the defendant, If. until the
| Jury Is completed. he has other peremptory
agt. Missouri tl20 U. s., III. II was said: The
right TO challenge is the right to reject not to
| impartial Jury Is obtained the constitutional